Ski11z sounds off: Call of Duty vs. Medal of Honor

Being a video game reviewer/critic has its advantages. I play all sorts of video games, some great, some meh, some trash. However, one of my favorite genres is first-person shooters. For me, a fan of the original “Doom,” “Goldeneye 007” and “Halo: Combat Evolved,” I can spot a great shooter at a thousand paces. I can also spot a stinker at a klick.

This year, 3 great shooters hit retail shelves here in the United States within weeks of each other. First, “Medal of Honor: Warfighter” hit on October 23rd. Second, “Halo 4” by 343 Studios hit November 6th on the Xbox 360. A week later, “Call of Duty: Black Ops II” hit and, as expected, broke numerous entertainment records, including making half a billion dollars in just 24 hours. Yes – imagine hitting the Powerball, folks.

And yet, all shooters are not created equal. For every “Halo,” there’s a “Blacksite: Area 51.” For every “Call of Duty,” there’s a “Duke Nukem Forever.” Based on personal preferences, several gamers have chose sides and are either “Call of Duty” or “Medal of Honor” fans. It’s possible to enjoy both franchises – I certainly do – but there’s a difference between both games. And the gap is definitely widening each offering.

First, let’s tackle how the franchises are similar. For one, both franchises, which started as WWII shooters, have taken a step forward with near-future scenarios. Definitely a plus. Also, gamers will likely play as different characters instead of playing as the same soldier throughout the 6-8 hour playthroughs. The variety often brings a fresh approach to the shooters, though I’d love the option of standing in-character throughout the games. There are also a wealth of online features. Both games are beasts with online multiplayer modes. Both games have a few online issues and even “Medal of Honor” required day one updates, but both franchises have no shortage of gamers who oftentimes spend days online, playing gamers from across the world.

However, for other gamers, they have limited access to online gaming and buy games based on the single-player experience. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to buy just online multiplayer games and pick up the single player later? Sadly, not many games offer that and I’m not sure if it would be cost-effective for companies either.

“Medal of Honor” has decided to take a more realistic approach to their single-player campaign. In 2010, I gave the original reboot of “MOH” Game of the Year honors. Here’s the link: http://www.29-95.com/time-suck/story/game-year-2010 I enjoyed the story and felt like it was very realistic as some points. I liked the multiplayer but really enjoyed the single-player campaign. So you can imagine my excitement with the newest “MOH” named “Warfighter.”

In “Warfighter,” a few of the main characters from “MOH” make a return appearance, including Tier 1 hotshot “Preacher,” who is now married but separated and a father. However, unlike the original “MOH,” “Warfighter took a different direction. Sure – you were able to chase an operative through crowded streets – you fight your way through a flooded village in the Philippines, and even had the Somali mission where you rescue a ship captain taken hostage. However, the story fell apart like a 1990 Yugo driving 60 mph on Katy Freeway during rush hour. It felt forced. We saw Preacher’s family – his digital soon-to-be ex and his daughter. Let’s have a show of hands who didn’t care about the digital family AT ALL? For me, it took away from the story. I play these games to escape reality. I don’t need to see a spec ops future widow at a coffee shop. I don’t need to hear her talk about putting him out of her mind when he deploys. No, give me a modded AR-15, a few clips and some flash-bangs and I’m good. If I want a tear-jerking narrative, I’ll watch or play “My Little Pony in the ‘Hood.”

Don’t get me wrong – I LOVED the original “MOH.” I gave it the coveted GOTY award. I loved driving the ATV and reaching out and touching enemies with my Barrett from miles away. I loved the finale. I especially enjoyed the mission where the Air Force radio operator YBarra calls in for help and then radios to call off the reinforcements because they weren’t going to make it.

In the original “Black Ops,” I felt the way I felt about “Warfighter.” I did enjoy blasting Fidel Castro at the beginning of the game and yes, I loved the SR-71 “Blackbird” mini mission, but after beating the game, I was like “Ok, why didn’t I enjoy it more?”

“Black Ops II” is not flawless either. Yes, online multiplayer is solid and will keep shooter fans entertained, especially with the Zombie and Nuketown maps. However, the single player shined. I actually enjoyed the flashback missions and how they painted a picture of how twisted the super villain Raul Menendez was. However, you can actually see where his motivation to take over the world came from.

The single player offered serious fun. From the winged man mission to one of Menendez’s hideouts to the final mission where you have to jump out of an on-fire Osprey VTOL, it was wall-to-wall action from start to finish. I didn’t need to see my digital family. By the time I … SPOILER INCOMING … had a decision to make concerning Menendez, I pulled the trigger like a boss and literally cheered when his brain matter and blood splattered on me.